Still it's jarring who just said this. Would you believe Irving Kristol? So first we have Lindsay Graham saying it's time to do something for immigration reform-and that he doesn't want the party to shoot itself in the foot again; and Jan Brewer almost came out in support as well then backtracked that it can't come until we build a fence among the Southern border-now we have Kristol admitting that it won't kill the country if we let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.
On immigration see here
Does the GOP finally get it on immigration?
"Conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol
said Sunday the Republican Party should accept new ideas, including the
much-criticized suggestion by Democrats that taxes be allowed to go up
on the wealthy."
"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on
millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't
think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's
"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend
a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom
live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.
Interestingly, Kristol is not the only conservative to use the idea of bashing Hollywood to argue for better policies.
Yes, that is by the one and only Morgan Warstler.
Morgan seems to get it. He understands that elections have consequences and in this election the people have quite clearly spoken against the Republican agenda. He has now become a convinced believer in Sumner's NGDP as being the ticket. We'll see, but at least he's trying something different.
I just don't know how many Republicans in Congress get it. Norquist is trying to spin this election as validation-as the GOP still has a solid majority in the House.
Lindsay Graham is now urging Obama to pass Simpson-Bowles. The GOP was in no rush to pass Simpson-Bowles before. At the time of the panel Paul Ryan was urging his fellow GOPers not to support it. Of course, he's spent the last 3 months during his time on Romney's losing ticket attacking the President for not passing the same bill he wasn't supporting.
Simpson-Bowles is something that is for Democrats to support, apparently. To be sure, with their disaster last Tuesday, the GOP may be willing to settle for less austerity. At the end of the day S-B is still austerity and it's premise-cutting corporate taxes and taxes for the rich and make up for it by closing undisclosed loopholes-wasn't this the Romney campaign?
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that Democrats and Republicans should
agree to a framework for raising revenue that follows the
recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission in order to bypass the
fiscal cliff, during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday."
"Say yes to Simpson-Bowles, Mr. President. I'm willing to say yes to
Simpson-Bowles," Graham said. Graham said Washington needs more revenue,
but that the revenue should come from closing tax loopholes and
deductions for the rich, not from raising tax rates. "Mr. President, if
you will say yes to Simpson-Bowles when it comes to revenue, so will I
and so will most Republicans. We can get revenue without destroying
jobs," Graham said.
"Graham added that Republicans will insist on reforming entitlements
as part of any deal. "We will insist our Democratic friends reform
entitlements -- something we've never done and that's where the big
money's at," he said.
Again, elections have consequences. And America just voted no on this framework. Whats encouraging is that the Democrats don't sound inclined to fall for the hype of S-B again. Chuck Schumer has criticized the framework as has Harry Reid and the Obama Administration voiced agreement.
So while it's very kind of Graham to support S-B now-as opposed to when it was on the table when the commission was in session-it's no sale. If this was Americans wanted they would have elected Mitt Romney.